^^^ No one said that, he said that thinking outside of the box is a good thing. I think you will have a hard time convincing most people that it's not a good thing. And, you know what, if the budget allows, then yes, novelty is great for architecture assuming it doesn't sacrifice function. I am personally a big time less is more modernist, but I would never want a city of only Miesian boxes. Hell, what do you think all prior styles of architecture to Modernism were? They were all novelty whether it is second empire mansard roofs, the ridiculous crown and cladding on the Carbide and Carbon Building, the impractically ornate design of the Jewlers Building, etc. That was back when budgets allowed architectural novelty and, frankly, if the Chinese are willing to come to Chicago and pay for 21st century architectural novelty, I'll take it. Again, I think it follows all the same strains as brutalism did: A playful rejection of the trap of rigid modernism. As long as this building is clad in quality materials, it will turn out great and contribute another layer of architectural intrigue to our skyline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenmore

ok, now i get it

It should be black like that, preferably with no windows. Actually, it should just be clad in black precast panels like the Roosevelt Tower. The more oppressive and dystopian the better.

^^LVW, I think you hit the nail on the head: Gang is leading the way into a 21st century take on brutalism; an alternate path forward deviating from the modernist revival seen in so many new buildings. I agree this would look best dressed in black. Add some darth-vador bronze tinted windows and it would proudly scream 'I will eat your soul' as the best brutalist buildings do.

I think massing is excellent and tallest portion being further east is gesture of grand things to come at the mouth of the river.

Greatly looking forward to this breaking the Streetville/LSE height plateau; its going to look great rising above the crowd when viewing this from the north or south lakefront.

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

this is great, but i hope it doesn't hurt the spire's ability to get funding, I know spire will be condo's, but Related did have interest in building some apts in the spire

They have no bearing on each other. The Spire is a long-shot under any circumstances. This has way more possibility of becoming reality. We've learned the hard way in Chicago that you can't pop the corks on the Champaign until the buildings are topped out (looking at you Waterview Tower and Spire). But given that this is a foreign investor ready to commit almost a billion dollars on their first foray into the US market, I'd say the possibility of this being built are very, very good.

I had a chance to speak with the upper echelon of Magellan after the Gino's East community meeting. After I heard Chinese money was going in on this project I jokingly replied "that means the building will be 88 floors, right?" to which he just smiled. This news confirms what I have been anticipating for the last month.

Is that like a lucky number 8 thing? The number being claimed now is 89, but maybe that's so the alderman has something to chop off. Given that design, it seems like any significant height alteration would require lots of re engineering of the angles. I guess that's one advantage of elaborate designs, it makes it harder to arbitrarily shorten it, whereas modernist or tripartite design can be stretched or shortened without much math.

The hotel will only have about 250 rooms, which accounts for maybe 25 stories in one of the 3 towers. There'll probably be more residential or commercial than hotel. The Peninsula and Langham hotels in town are also 5 star hotels owned by Chinese companies.

maybe if the smallest tower on the right was removed it would look a lot better, more slender, and a bit more composed. but honestly i do like the design, It would contrast the tallest buildings from the 70's very well. this is a first for Chicago, probably the most contemporary skyscraper in Chicago if built

Given its location in LSE I don't mind the overall design. It's a 21st century neighborhood and will look fine in context. What I don't like is how it purposefully disrespects the existing street wall. Jutting out and sloping in, when a flush fit with the adjacent buildings would look better, before beginning the zigzag.

I do miss arquetectonica though. That would have been absolutely iconic going north on lake shore drive. I'd love to see a render of Gang's proposal looking north from say Monroe.

What I don't like is how it purposefully disrespects the existing street wall. Jutting out and sloping in, when a flush fit with the adjacent buildings would look better, before beginning the zigzag.

^ I thought about it as well, but the Spertus Institute really doesn't take away from the Mich Avenue streetwall despite its design. In a way, it sort of adds 'punctuation' to it.

A good streetwall will have very little deviation from it, but a few odd buildings can sometimes stand out and become that much more distinct. The key is to not have too many buildings like this, where it turns into a cacaphony of "look at me" buildings.

i guess, but Gang's design is so much more highly ordered and restrained. it's still deconstructivist if i had to place it anywhere, but without the arbitrary whimsy Gehry has become so famous for. Gang's design is still quite austere and serious in an appropriately chicago kinda way. two very different designs; i don't see one as being a less or more interesting version of the other.